CDZ President might have authority to simply appoint SC judge

[320 Years of History]

So hell, I don't know and neither does anyone here. What I do know is that the Republicans are being partisan jerks and that it is likely to come back to bite them

Red:
I know what I think, I know I have read a good deal of the precious little scholarly material that exists on this type of topic, and I know why I think what I do and what I think of what I have read. I know that I will also know what I will think and why upon seeing how this thing plays out.

• The Functions, Roles, and Duties of the Senate in the Supreme Court Appointment Process
  
• Evolution of the Senate’s Role in the Nomination and Confirmation Process: A Brief History
  
• The Consent of the Governed: Recall of United States Senators
  
• The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest -- Not directly related, but I wondered about the conflict of interest aspects of the matter and how they might play into things.
  
• PRESIDENTS, SENATES, AND FAILED SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS
  
• The Constitution of the United States

Blue:
They most certainly are. I sure hope it will and does.

 

[320 Years of History]

Someone mentioned that the Senate is in recess. That's fully so. The Senate, last I heard, was going to refrain from recess and instead hold pro forma sessions from now until it would normally return from recess. Thus the Senate hasn't actually declared a recess.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Supreme Court had never clarified that power until its decision in June 2014 in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.

What I would find interesting is if a Democrat Senator showed up and call a quorum call.

In National Labor Relations v. Noel Canning the SCOTUS noted:

"In our view, however, the pro forma sessions count as sessions, not as periods of recess. We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business. The Senate met that standard here.

<<SNIP: They also said>>>
We therefore conclude, in light of historical practice, that a recess of more than 3 days but less than 10 days is presumptively too short to fall within the Clause.​

And interesting article on SCOTUSBlog notes:

The premise is that a Senator call for a quorum call to PROVE that the Senate is able to conduct business. Under the rules of the Senate, if a quorum call is made, then the Senate is unable to conduct business until the quorum is shown. If a quorum cannot be made, then the Senate isn't in session for business. If the proforma session is on day 3 and the Senate must be able to conduct business in less than 10 days - then almost every GOP Senator would have to fly back to DC to be called as present. Not, since the intent it to show the Senate cannot conduct business, none of the Dem Senators need come back, there just needs to be 51 GOP Senators.

Can a president (with a little help from one senator of his party) circumvent most of the Court’s limitation on the recess appointments power?


(Will they do it? Probably not.)

>>>>

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So hell, I don't know and neither does anyone here. What I do know is that the Republicans are being partisan jerks and that it is likely to come back to bite them

Red:
I know what I think, I know I have read a good deal of the precious little scholarly material that exists on this type of topic, and I know why I think what I do and what I think of what I have read. I know that I will also know what I will think and why upon seeing how this thing plays out.

• The Functions, Roles, and Duties of the Senate in the Supreme Court Appointment Process
  
• Evolution of the Senate’s Role in the Nomination and Confirmation Process: A Brief History
  
• The Consent of the Governed: Recall of United States Senators
  
• The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest -- Not directly related, but I wondered about the conflict of interest aspects of the matter and how they might play into things.
  
• PRESIDENTS, SENATES, AND FAILED SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS
  
• The Constitution of the United States

Blue:
They most certainly are. I sure hope it will and does.

Thanks! That is quite a bunch of stuff that we should all take time to digest.

 

[320 Years of History]

So hell, I don't know and neither does anyone here. What I do know is that the Republicans are being partisan jerks and that it is likely to come back to bite them

Red:
I know what I think, I know I have read a good deal of the precious little scholarly material that exists on this type of topic, and I know why I think what I do and what I think of what I have read. I know that I will also know what I will think and why upon seeing how this thing plays out.

• The Functions, Roles, and Duties of the Senate in the Supreme Court Appointment Process
  
• Evolution of the Senate’s Role in the Nomination and Confirmation Process: A Brief History
  
• The Consent of the Governed: Recall of United States Senators
  
• The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest -- Not directly related, but I wondered about the conflict of interest aspects of the matter and how they might play into things.
  
• PRESIDENTS, SENATES, AND FAILED SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS
  
• The Constitution of the United States

Blue:
They most certainly are. I sure hope it will and does.

Thanks! That is quite a bunch of stuff that we should all take time to digest.

You're welcome. By all means, take your time. The U.S. Senate is clearly in no hurry to act. LOL You'll surely have enough time to get through it all before it does act. LOL

 

[jwoodie]

What ever happened to ADVISE? It seems to me that if the Senate proposed one or more judges and the President selected one for nomination, a better argument for inaction might be made. As it stands, CONSENT is an affirmation action that can granted or withheld without being subject to any time limitation.

 

[jon_berzerk]

get your blank together

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

I didn't disagree with that. But that isn't what I responded to.

1. What I was doing was pointing out that Political Appointments (for cabinet members and other high Executive Branch officials) are not the same as Article III Judicial appointments to the bench. I was pointing out a lack of knowledge about the two.

2. I also pointed out that your statement on appointments expiring at the end of the presidency was also incorrect. A recess appointment to the Judaical Branch ends at the end of the next session of congress. That being a 2 year cycle while a presidents term is 4 years. For example, if a President is able to make a recess appointment over the summer Congressional break, let's say in the summer of 2017. That Congressional session started in January 2017 and ends in January 2019. Therefore that recess appointment expires in January 2019, yet the President inaugurated in January 2017 remains president until January 2021.

It's pretty easy to understand on someone understands that it's not the Presidents term that is the deciding factor, it is the congressional session.


>>>>

fact remains the president needs the approval of congress to have one of his nominees

placed in the SC for any amount of time

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

get your blank together

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

I didn't disagree with that. But that isn't what I responded to.

1. What I was doing was pointing out that Political Appointments (for cabinet members and other high Executive Branch officials) are not the same as Article III Judicial appointments to the bench. I was pointing out a lack of knowledge about the two.

2. I also pointed out that your statement on appointments expiring at the end of the presidency was also incorrect. A recess appointment to the Judaical Branch ends at the end of the next session of congress. That being a 2 year cycle while a presidents term is 4 years. For example, if a President is able to make a recess appointment over the summer Congressional break, let's say in the summer of 2017. That Congressional session started in January 2017 and ends in January 2019. Therefore that recess appointment expires in January 2019, yet the President inaugurated in January 2017 remains president until January 2021.

It's pretty easy to understand on someone understands that it's not the Presidents term that is the deciding factor, it is the congressional session.


>>>>

fact remains the president needs the approval of congress to have one of his nominees

placed in the SC for any amount of time

Perhaps.....but it's not as simple as you might like it to be. Please see post #138. The problem with threads like this is that people keep dumbing down a complex issue, and making assertions based on what they want to be true as opposed to actually dealing with the topic.

 

[jon_berzerk]

get your blank together

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

I didn't disagree with that. But that isn't what I responded to.

1. What I was doing was pointing out that Political Appointments (for cabinet members and other high Executive Branch officials) are not the same as Article III Judicial appointments to the bench. I was pointing out a lack of knowledge about the two.

2. I also pointed out that your statement on appointments expiring at the end of the presidency was also incorrect. A recess appointment to the Judaical Branch ends at the end of the next session of congress. That being a 2 year cycle while a presidents term is 4 years. For example, if a President is able to make a recess appointment over the summer Congressional break, let's say in the summer of 2017. That Congressional session started in January 2017 and ends in January 2019. Therefore that recess appointment expires in January 2019, yet the President inaugurated in January 2017 remains president until January 2021.

It's pretty easy to understand on someone understands that it's not the Presidents term that is the deciding factor, it is the congressional session.


>>>>

fact remains the president needs the approval of congress to have one of his nominees

placed in the SC for any amount of time

Perhaps.....but it's not as simple as you might like it to be. Please see post #138. The problem with threads like this is that people keep dumbing down a complex issue, and making assertions based on what they want to be true as opposed to actually dealing with the topic.

no it is that simple

it is not complex at all

if congress is in session

the prezbo needs the consent of congress to place a SC justice

if he places one while there is a recess the appointment ENDS with the ending of the PRESIDENCY

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

get your blank together

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

I didn't disagree with that. But that isn't what I responded to.

1. What I was doing was pointing out that Political Appointments (for cabinet members and other high Executive Branch officials) are not the same as Article III Judicial appointments to the bench. I was pointing out a lack of knowledge about the two.

2. I also pointed out that your statement on appointments expiring at the end of the presidency was also incorrect. A recess appointment to the Judaical Branch ends at the end of the next session of congress. That being a 2 year cycle while a presidents term is 4 years. For example, if a President is able to make a recess appointment over the summer Congressional break, let's say in the summer of 2017. That Congressional session started in January 2017 and ends in January 2019. Therefore that recess appointment expires in January 2019, yet the President inaugurated in January 2017 remains president until January 2021.

It's pretty easy to understand on someone understands that it's not the Presidents term that is the deciding factor, it is the congressional session.


>>>>

fact remains the president needs the approval of congress to have one of his nominees

placed in the SC for any amount of time

Perhaps.....but it's not as simple as you might like it to be. Please see post #138. The problem with threads like this is that people keep dumbing down a complex issue, and making assertions based on what they want to be true as opposed to actually dealing with the topic.

no it is that simple

it is not complex at all

if congress is in session

the prezbo needs the consent of congress to place a SC justice

if he places one while there is a recess the appointment ENDS with the ending of the PRESIDENCY

OK, If you want to believe that you know more and have a deeper insight than the writers at SCOTUSblog, go right ahead.

About Us

SCOTUSblog is devoted to comprehensively covering the U.S. Supreme Court without bias and according to the highest journalistic and legal ethical standards. The blog is provided as a public service.

Tom Goldstein and Amy Howe, husband and wife, founded the blog in 2002. Reporter Lyle Denniston joined a few years later. Other permanent and part-time staff members have joined over time. Significant contributions have come from other lawyers at Tom’s law firm (where Amy was formerly a partner as well), as well as their students at Stanford and Harvard Law Schools. Now more than twenty people work on or write for the blog.

However, please keep in mind that such self assured anti-intellectual arrogance just drags down the quality of discourse and contributes nothing to the forum.

 

[WorldWatcher]

if he places one while there is a recess the appointment ENDS with the ending of the PRESIDENCY

See that's where your statement is wrong.

Judicial appointment's DON'T end with the ending of the PRESIDENCY. Judicial appointments end with the session of congress.

They are not the same.

If Congress were to recess on January 3rd, 2016 and Obama makes a recess appointment (not likely, but just as an explanation), then that recess appointment is valid through the next session of Congress which expires in January 2019 even though Obama would have left office on January 20th, 2017.

Is the session of Congress that matters on Judicial recess appointments not changes in the Oval Office.


>>>>

 

[jon_berzerk]

get your blank together

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

I didn't disagree with that. But that isn't what I responded to.

1. What I was doing was pointing out that Political Appointments (for cabinet members and other high Executive Branch officials) are not the same as Article III Judicial appointments to the bench. I was pointing out a lack of knowledge about the two.

2. I also pointed out that your statement on appointments expiring at the end of the presidency was also incorrect. A recess appointment to the Judaical Branch ends at the end of the next session of congress. That being a 2 year cycle while a presidents term is 4 years. For example, if a President is able to make a recess appointment over the summer Congressional break, let's say in the summer of 2017. That Congressional session started in January 2017 and ends in January 2019. Therefore that recess appointment expires in January 2019, yet the President inaugurated in January 2017 remains president until January 2021.

It's pretty easy to understand on someone understands that it's not the Presidents term that is the deciding factor, it is the congressional session.


>>>>

fact remains the president needs the approval of congress to have one of his nominees

placed in the SC for any amount of time

Perhaps.....but it's not as simple as you might like it to be. Please see post #138. The problem with threads like this is that people keep dumbing down a complex issue, and making assertions based on what they want to be true as opposed to actually dealing with the topic.

no it is that simple

it is not complex at all

if congress is in session

the prezbo needs the consent of congress to place a SC justice

if he places one while there is a recess the appointment ENDS with the ending of the PRESIDENCY

OK, If you want to believe that you know more and have a deeper insight than the writers at SCOTUSblog, go right ahead.

About Us

SCOTUSblog is devoted to comprehensively covering the U.S. Supreme Court without bias and according to the highest journalistic and legal ethical standards. The blog is provided as a public service.

Tom Goldstein and Amy Howe, husband and wife, founded the blog in 2002. Reporter Lyle Denniston joined a few years later. Other permanent and part-time staff members have joined over time. Significant contributions have come from other lawyers at Tom’s law firm (where Amy was formerly a partner as well), as well as their students at Stanford and Harvard Law Schools. Now more than twenty people work on or write for the blog.

However, please keep in mind that such self assured anti-intellectual arrogance just drags down the quality of discourse and contributes nothing to the forum.

who cares what you think

the Constitution is clear on SC appointments

if it was constitutional the prezbo would have done it already

 

[jon_berzerk]

if he places one while there is a recess the appointment ENDS with the ending of the PRESIDENCY

See that's where your statement is wrong.

Judicial appointment's DON'T end with the ending of the PRESIDENCY. Judicial appointments end with the session of congress.

They are not the same.

If Congress were to recess on January 3rd, 2016 and Obama makes a recess appointment (not likely, but just as an explanation), then that recess appointment is valid through the next session of Congress which expires in January 2019 even though Obama would have left office on January 20th, 2017.

Is the session of Congress that matters on Judicial recess appointments not changes in the Oval Office.


>>>>

no it dont quit being silly

the recess appointment ends with the prezbo

a>>>>new<<< congress may have a vote to confirm or deny the appointment

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I didn't disagree with that. But that isn't what I responded to.

1. What I was doing was pointing out that Political Appointments (for cabinet members and other high Executive Branch officials) are not the same as Article III Judicial appointments to the bench. I was pointing out a lack of knowledge about the two.

2. I also pointed out that your statement on appointments expiring at the end of the presidency was also incorrect. A recess appointment to the Judaical Branch ends at the end of the next session of congress. That being a 2 year cycle while a presidents term is 4 years. For example, if a President is able to make a recess appointment over the summer Congressional break, let's say in the summer of 2017. That Congressional session started in January 2017 and ends in January 2019. Therefore that recess appointment expires in January 2019, yet the President inaugurated in January 2017 remains president until January 2021.

It's pretty easy to understand on someone understands that it's not the Presidents term that is the deciding factor, it is the congressional session.


>>>>

fact remains the president needs the approval of congress to have one of his nominees

placed in the SC for any amount of time

Perhaps.....but it's not as simple as you might like it to be. Please see post #138. The problem with threads like this is that people keep dumbing down a complex issue, and making assertions based on what they want to be true as opposed to actually dealing with the topic.

no it is that simple

it is not complex at all

if congress is in session

the prezbo needs the consent of congress to place a SC justice

if he places one while there is a recess the appointment ENDS with the ending of the PRESIDENCY

OK, If you want to believe that you know more and have a deeper insight than the writers at SCOTUSblog, go right ahead.

About Us

SCOTUSblog is devoted to comprehensively covering the U.S. Supreme Court without bias and according to the highest journalistic and legal ethical standards. The blog is provided as a public service.

Tom Goldstein and Amy Howe, husband and wife, founded the blog in 2002. Reporter Lyle Denniston joined a few years later. Other permanent and part-time staff members have joined over time. Significant contributions have come from other lawyers at Tom’s law firm (where Amy was formerly a partner as well), as well as their students at Stanford and Harvard Law Schools. Now more than twenty people work on or write for the blog.

However, please keep in mind that such self assured anti-intellectual arrogance just drags down the quality of discourse and contributes nothing to the forum.

who cares what you think

the Constitution is clear on SC appointments

if it was constitutional the prezbo would have done it already

OK fine. I recognize your need to be right - to cling to a ridged "black and white" viewpoint in order to find comfort in the belief that Obama can't appoint a justice on his own. However, you are doing a disservice to the quest for truth and knowledge

 

[jon_berzerk]

fact remains the president needs the approval of congress to have one of his nominees

placed in the SC for any amount of time

Perhaps.....but it's not as simple as you might like it to be. Please see post #138. The problem with threads like this is that people keep dumbing down a complex issue, and making assertions based on what they want to be true as opposed to actually dealing with the topic.

no it is that simple

it is not complex at all

if congress is in session

the prezbo needs the consent of congress to place a SC justice

if he places one while there is a recess the appointment ENDS with the ending of the PRESIDENCY

OK, If you want to believe that you know more and have a deeper insight than the writers at SCOTUSblog, go right ahead.

About Us

SCOTUSblog is devoted to comprehensively covering the U.S. Supreme Court without bias and according to the highest journalistic and legal ethical standards. The blog is provided as a public service.

Tom Goldstein and Amy Howe, husband and wife, founded the blog in 2002. Reporter Lyle Denniston joined a few years later. Other permanent and part-time staff members have joined over time. Significant contributions have come from other lawyers at Tom’s law firm (where Amy was formerly a partner as well), as well as their students at Stanford and Harvard Law Schools. Now more than twenty people work on or write for the blog.

However, please keep in mind that such self assured anti-intellectual arrogance just drags down the quality of discourse and contributes nothing to the forum.

who cares what you think

the Constitution is clear on SC appointments

if it was constitutional the prezbo would have done it already

OK fine. I recognize your need to be right - to cling to a ridged "black and white" viewpoint in order to find comfort in the belief that Obama can't appoint a justice on his own. However, you are doing a disservice to the quest for truth and knowledge

--LOL

yeah sure buddy

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I didn't disagree with that. But that isn't what I responded to.

1. What I was doing was pointing out that Political Appointments (for cabinet members and other high Executive Branch officials) are not the same as Article III Judicial appointments to the bench. I was pointing out a lack of knowledge about the two.

2. I also pointed out that your statement on appointments expiring at the end of the presidency was also incorrect. A recess appointment to the Judaical Branch ends at the end of the next session of congress. That being a 2 year cycle while a presidents term is 4 years. For example, if a President is able to make a recess appointment over the summer Congressional break, let's say in the summer of 2017. That Congressional session started in January 2017 and ends in January 2019. Therefore that recess appointment expires in January 2019, yet the President inaugurated in January 2017 remains president until January 2021.

It's pretty easy to understand on someone understands that it's not the Presidents term that is the deciding factor, it is the congressional session.


>>>>

fact remains the president needs the approval of congress to have one of his nominees

placed in the SC for any amount of time

Perhaps.....but it's not as simple as you might like it to be. Please see post #138. The problem with threads like this is that people keep dumbing down a complex issue, and making assertions based on what they want to be true as opposed to actually dealing with the topic.

no it is that simple

it is not complex at all

if congress is in session

the prezbo needs the consent of congress to place a SC justice

if he places one while there is a recess the appointment ENDS with the ending of the PRESIDENCY

OK, If you want to believe that you know more and have a deeper insight than the writers at SCOTUSblog, go right ahead.

About Us

SCOTUSblog is devoted to comprehensively covering the U.S. Supreme Court without bias and according to the highest journalistic and legal ethical standards. The blog is provided as a public service.

Tom Goldstein and Amy Howe, husband and wife, founded the blog in 2002. Reporter Lyle Denniston joined a few years later. Other permanent and part-time staff members have joined over time. Significant contributions have come from other lawyers at Tom’s law firm (where Amy was formerly a partner as well), as well as their students at Stanford and Harvard Law Schools. Now more than twenty people work on or write for the blog.

However, please keep in mind that such self assured anti-intellectual arrogance just drags down the quality of discourse and contributes nothing to the forum.

who cares what you think

the Constitution is clear on SC appointments

if it was constitutional the prezbo would have done it already

PS: I didn't say that it was constitutional. I said that it was complicated and ambiguous. Two things that you can't deal with.

 

[jwoodie]

However, please keep in mind that such self assured anti-intellectual arrogance just drags down the quality of discourse and contributes nothing to the forum.

So does mindlessly reciting the opinions of others.

 

[WorldWatcher]

no it dont quit being silly

the recess appointment ends with the prezbo

a>>>>new<<< congress may have a vote to confirm or deny the appointment

The two statements above are not the same thing. Sessions of congress do not end at the same time as a Presidential term.

Sessions of Congress are two years and the Presidents term is 4 years.

You are still wrong on two counts:

1. We are not talking about just "any" appointment, we are talking about recess appointments (blue). Those end with the session of congress, not with the presidential term.

2. Second point you are wrong about is that appointments that have already been confirmed by congress, even if the president changes, do not have to be re-confirmed as long askes them to stay in their current job. If the President nominates someone else for that position, then Congress must confirm that appointment. For example, Robert Gates was the Secretary of Defense under G.W. Bush from 2006-2009 and remained in that position under President Obama from 2009-2011. He did not have to go through another confirmation hearing under the new President because he'd already been confirmed under G. W. Bush for that position.​

Guide to the Constitution
https://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP+P\W; P


>>>>

 

[HenryBHough]

As I read this thread it becomes increasingly clear that the left wants no mere Constitutioonal Crisis. They're jonesing for open civil war.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Congress also owes it to the people to do its job. This is said, not to defend the President (for whom I did not vote), but to criticize this élite that has taken over the country with its two party dictatorship.

Congress can do their job just like Obama and Hairy Reid did their jobs.

Obama went around Congress and Hairy Reid sat on everything the House sent him until he was booted out.

So Obama deserves the same treatment he gave congress. Nothing but "Talk to the hand, asshole!"